Battlefield V Open Beta Benchmarked

[Elistaer]

I recently sold my i5 4460 and was planning on getting another but in light of all the new games coming out I expect it's time to upgrade to Ryzen 1600x. Or would an i7 4770 be fine? Thinking of getting an i7 4770 so I don't need a new motherboard and ram, etc. Though it is high time I upgrade. Definitely wanna get a 6 core CPU and 16gb of ram. Wish ram prices weren't so darn high.

Buy a Ryzen 5 2600 and let it run with a good Cooling it is better than the I7 47xx and I get a 6 core 12 thread CPU that is fine for a will.

I can take a Asus B450 or ASRock B450 but no gigabyte they are near to be Creap.

 

[OscarMike]

How do you switch between Dx11 and 12?

 

[Theinsanegamer]

That entirely depends on the game in question.

Battlefield, with 64 player multiplayer, showed nothing short of massive gains with 8 thread usage.

You get diminishing returns if your CPU cant handle the game you are playing too. Battlefield multiplier is one of the few games that can push quad cores to breaking point on higher framerate systems.

Well, I think the person wanted to know whether the game will be playable or run smoothly (eg. Upper 40s to 60 fps average) at decent settings, on an average system rather than getting high benchmarks on a higher end system. For most gamers with a budget, pushing 100+ framerates (or even past 60 with vsync) isn't important. Upper 40s fps is probably playable and 50s fps is probably good enough to be considered smooth - especially when using an average 60-75 htz monitor.

Upper 40 is smooth on 60hz?

What are you smoking? That kind of framerate produces noticeable slowdowns and framerate variance. It is FAR from "smooth".

Console users might be OK with it, but PC users, especially on multiplayer shooters, would absolutely not be alright with framerates falling that low.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Upper 40 is smooth on 60hz?

What are you smoking? That kind of framerate produces noticeable slowdowns and framerate variance. It is FAR from "smooth".

Console users might be OK with it, but PC users, especially on multiplayer shooters, would absolutely not be alright with framerates falling that low.

Go back and reread what I said. I said upper 40s is probably playable and 50s fps is probably good enough to be smooth.

Upper 40s average fps is playable even for shooters if the minimum doesnt drop too low and framerate variance is kept within manageable levels. Let's not forget getting at least 30 fps for shooters was the target 6 years ago, and console shooters also used to be locked to 30 fps.

 

[All2surreal]

It's probably MSI Afterburner with RivaTuner OSD (rivatuner is included with Afterburner install)

Thanks!

 

[kryptis]

I just tried it with a 2500K and a gtx970 at ultra on my 1680x1050 moniter hitting 50-60fps

 

[Jocobs]

I am hitting 50-60fps on Low or Ultra settings with my Gtx 1060 6gb.
Can you help me ?
The temps. are all fine but the Fps are pretty **** :/

Gtx 1060 6gb
Ryzen5 1600x
8gb ddr4 ram

 

[Bluescreendeath]

I am hitting 50-60fps on Low or Ultra settings with my Gtx 1060 6gb.
Can you help me ?
The temps. are all fine but the Fps are pretty **** :/

Gtx 1060 6gb
Ryzen5 1600x
8gb ddr4 ram

50-60 fps on both low and ultra?
Turn off vertical sync.

 

[loki1944]

Do you have an i5-4690k lying around or something close to it? If Yes, please do include that in your CPU testing. If not, please do include that in your CPU testing

Expect to lose frames and stuttering with that CPU in this game. The newer battlefield games like at least 8 threads. 4 core 4 thread is now considered entry level.

BF1 benchmark on this site showed 6600K and i3 6100 doing just fine.

 

[Evernessince]

BF1 benchmark on this site showed 6600K and i3 6100 doing just fine.

Please read the article

"As expected Battlefield V is no easier on quad-cores, we regularly saw my Core i7-8700K test system which features all cores clocked at 5 GHz exceed 70% utilization and at times peak at over 80%, so good luck with four threads."

TechSpot's BF1 benchmark clearly shows a regression in performance when dipping below 6 threads, even with something as new as the 6600K (at the time the game was released). So yes, a 4000 series CPU would be in even worse shape.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

TechSpot's BF1 benchmark clearly shows a regression in performance when dipping below 6 threads, even with something as new as the 6600K (at the time the game was released). So yes, a 4000 series CPU would be in even worse shape.

Battlefield 5's official minimum PC requirements (which tends to be inflated anyways) only requires an i5-6600k or FX-6350. Those are CPUs that get roughly 7000-8000 in passmark. The i5-4690k gets around this score as well, so it should be able to play it just fine. The i5-4000 may not enable powerful GPUs such as the 1080 perform at their full potential in BF5, but it should most likely still be able to get perfectly playable and smooth framerates.

For example, in the Techspot benchmark of BF1, a 2 core/4 T i3-6600T did show a regression compared to the 4c/8t cpus. However, it was still getting 88 fps minimum and 94 fps average fps on ultra settings at 1080p. It didn't perform as well as the i7-6700ks that got 124-148fps, but 88 min/94 average is still very smooth gameplay and more than what most players would need.

Also, it seems like there are some performance problems to be worked out in this early build of BF5, so we should expect the released version to get much better performance in general.

 

[Evernessince]

Battlefield 5's official minimum PC requirements (which tends to be inflated anyways) only requires an i5-6600k or FX-6350. Those are CPUs that get roughly 7000-8000 in passmark. The i5-4690k gets around this score as well, so it should be able to play it just fine. The i5-4000 may not enable powerful GPUs such as the 1080 perform at their full potential in BF5, but it should most likely still be able to get perfectly playable and smooth framerates.

For example, in the Techspot benchmark of BF1, a 2 core/4 T i3-6600T did show a regression compared to the 4c/8t cpus. However, it was still getting 88 fps minimum and 94 fps average fps on ultra settings at 1080p. It didn't perform as well as the i7-6700ks that got 124-148fps, but 88 min/94 average is still very smooth gameplay and more than what most players would need.

Also, it seems like there are some performance problems to be worked out in this early build of BF5, so we should expect the released version to get much better performance in general.

I don't have time to argue subjective platitudes with you. What you find to be playable is great, but clearly the author of this article and myself find the dias to be moving when it comes to getting a good experience out of a game.

I'd also recommend you go to the BF1 forums and search for "i3 6100 1060", where there are dozens upon dozens of complaints about stuttering. What TechSpot's graphs don't show is that even when a dual core CPU is getting good average FPS and decent minimums, it doesn't mean much if the FPS bounces around like a seismograph during gameplay. Even with a low end GPU, dual cores are going out. There's a reason Dice has an i5 in the minimum spec of that game.

 

[Sausagemeat]

Yet more evidence that Nvidia GPUs are benefitting more from DX12 than AMD GPUs are now. Funny how things change. I imagine once the game is actually finished DX12 won’t be a stuttery mess. BF1 wasnt in DX12.

CPU comparisons might be interesting on DX12 as I noticed the CPU overhead was greatly reduced on BF1 with DX12 enabled. Meaning a quad core might go a lot further on those 64player multiplayer modes.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

I don't have time to argue subjective platitudes with you. What you find to be playable is great, but clearly the author of this article and myself find the dias to be moving when it comes to getting a good experience out of a game.
I'd also recommend you go to the BF1 forums and search for "i3 6100 1060", where there are dozens upon dozens of complaints about stuttering. What TechSpot's graphs don't show is that even when a dual core CPU is getting good average FPS and decent minimums, it doesn't mean much if the FPS bounces around like a seismograph during gameplay. Even with a low end GPU, dual cores are going out. There's a reason Dice has an i5 in the minimum spec of that game.

What you and I personally consider to be playable is ultimately irrelevant. Dice set the minimum cpu requirements for BFV to be an Intel or AMD cpu that is roughly around the level of an i5-4690k in passmark, so having at least a quad i5 like those means the game will be playable based on Dice's own standards.

The first poster was talking about an i5 4690k and whether he can get some life out of it to play BF5. He still has an i5, which is significantly better than an i3 6100. There is a reason why Dice set the i5 as the minimum spec of BF1 and of BF5 - the game will be playable just fine with an i5 quad core upon release.

 

[Evernessince]

Yet more evidence that Nvidia GPUs are benefitting more from DX12 than AMD GPUs are now. Funny how things change. I imagine once the game is actually finished DX12 won’t be a stuttery mess. BF1 wasnt in DX12.

CPU comparisons might be interesting on DX12 as I noticed the CPU overhead was greatly reduced on BF1 with DX12 enabled. Meaning a quad core might go a lot further on those 64player multiplayer modes.

Take off the green tinted goggles. First, neither company benefits from DX12. Second, Nvdia looses 37 off it's 1% framerate while AMD only looses 24. Third, BF1 was terrible in DX12 as well. https://www.techspot.com/review/1267-battlefield-1-benchmarks/page5.html

I have no idea where you got your information but it's grossly inaccurate.

What you and I personally consider to be playable is ultimately irrelevant.

This comment section is laden with replies about you arguing your definition of playable against the author and Dice. Clearly you do consider your opinion to be relevant, even above all else.

so having at least a quad i5 like those means the game will be playable based on Dice's own standards.

Incorrect. An i5 750 would be completely inadequate, for example.

The first poster was talking about an i5 4690k, which is still an i5 and significantly better than an i3 6100. There is a reason why Dice set the i5 as the minimum spec of BF1 and of BF5 - the i5 quad core will be playable.

Great and my original comment still stands. It will be a subpar experience, hence why it's defined as minimum. All you've done is talk in circles and now were back to the original comment you reproach.

 

[Elistaer]

Yet more evidence that Nvidia GPUs are benefitting more from DX12 than AMD GPUs are now. Funny how things change. I imagine once the game is actually finished DX12 won’t be a stuttery mess. BF1 wasnt in DX12.

CPU comparisons might be interesting on DX12 as I noticed the CPU overhead was greatly reduced on BF1 with DX12 enabled. Meaning a quad core might go a lot further on those 64player multiplayer modes.

AMD GPUs will work better on DX12 than a GTX10XX so AMD will have a biger Support and gain more, look at the Forza Benchmark ther is a Vega 64 over the GTX 1080TI in 1080p in QHD ther is only 5% under a TI

 

[Sausagemeat]

AMD GPUs will work better on DX12 than a GTX10XX so AMD will have a biger Support and gain more, look at the Forza Benchmark ther is a Vega 64 over the GTX 1080TI in 1080p in QHD ther is only 5% under a TI

Well currently AMD GPUs are benefitting less on DX12 than their Nvidia counterparts in this game currently according to the tests at the top of the page. And this is a trend I’ve noticed with the 1080 and 1080ti.

Forza is an older game however the newer titles coming out definitely give Nvidia cards more performance with DX12 switched on. Forza is also a very unusual title in that a Vega will beat a 1080ti, which is an incredibly anomalous result.

Going forward it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Nvidia retained the same dominance that they had in DX11 with DX12. We are already seeing this begin to happen.

 

[Elistaer]

You are Dreaming for all Raytracing Games they need a good DX12 support and that is what AMD is doing they living with that Low-Level API.

Dice can only not implement the DX12 path good enough and I Think that is a Nvidia desition that all AMD GPUs are also in DX12 under an AMD GPU, we will see what other games go to and what the DX12 Path is doing later that year also next year with the GPUs but I don't see a GTX10xx over a AMD GPU with a good DX12 Path.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

This comment section is laden with replies about you arguing your definition of playable against the author and Dice. Clearly you do consider your opinion to be relevant, even above all else.

False. Neither the article's author nor Dice claimed i5-4690k cpus will make BF5 unplayable. That is your own assumption.

The article's author only said BF5 beta is a CPU hog and would be taxing on quad cores. He did not said i5s would be unplayable. Dice's own minimum requirements said i5-6600s would be ok, and the i5-4690k is comparable to the i5-6600. So you're the only person here claiming the first poster's i5-4690k would be unplayable...when neither the author nor Dice said that.

We may consider our opinions of what is playable relevant, but our opinions in light of Dice's own minimum requirements for what is playable is irrelevant. Dice said recent i5s like the 6600k should play BF5 just fine. The i5-4690k performs comparable to the 6600k, so the first poster's cpu should run BF5 just fine as well.

Incorrect. An i5 750 would be completely inadequate, for example.

I said " at least a quad i5 like those" - which means quad i5s comparable to the two cpus I just mentioned. So all the recent i5s 4000, i5 6000s, 7000s, etc instead of the first generation i5s like the i5-750.

Great and my original comment still stands. It will be a subpar experience, hence why it's defined as minimum. All you've done is talk in circles and now were back to the original comment you reproach.

Whether it is a subpar experience is your own opinion. Minimum specs does not mean it will run at a "sub par" setting or level. Battlefield 1's minimum cpu requirement was also an i5-6600k, and people with comparable or worse cpus could play BF1 on high-very high with smooth framerates. Minimum specs are usually inflated by game developers, so minimum specs does NOT mean minimum settings.

Subpar means "below average," and running it on high-very high settings with a stable 60 fps is not really "below average."

 

[Evernessince]

False. Neither the article's author nor Dice claimed i5-4690k cpus will make BF5 unplayable. That is your own assumption.

For the 3rd time, never claimed BF5 would be unplayable. What I did claim is that it would stutter and the experience would be subpar. You can quote me on that one.

The article's author only said BF5 beta is a CPU hog and would be taxing on quad cores. He did not said i5s would be unplayable. Dice's own minimum requirements said i5-6600s would be ok, and the i5-4690k is comparable to the i5-6600. So you're the only person here claiming the first poster's i5-4690k would be unplayable...when neither the author nor Dice said that.

How about you stop paraphrasing people and actually quote them, the authors actual words...

"Battlefield 1 was one of the first games to really kill the quad-core CPU, 64-player multiplayer Battlefield 1 to be precise. As expected Battlefield V is no easier on quad-cores, we regularly saw my Core i7-8700K test system which features all cores clocked at 5 GHz exceed 70% utilization and at times peak at 8%, so good luck with four threads."

Yes, because clearly the author is expressing how easily this game will be playable on a quad core quad thread. It doesn't take a genius to realize that when you remove 33% of your cores and 66.6% of your threads (4c 4t vs 6c 12t) on a game that already consumes 80% of your CPU, you are going to see sacrifices. That's not an opinion, it's basic math.

In your own words, what you have come up with, "That is your own assumption". You refuse to believe the author of this article, you refuse to look at the numbers, and you refuse to believe the buxom lot of posts on the BF forums about this very issue.

I said " at least a quad i5 like those" - which means quad i5s comparable to the two cpus I just mentioned. So all the recent i5s 4000, i5 6000s, 7000s, etc instead of the first generation i5s like the i5-750.

Incorrect, you edited your post after the fact to add that in. What, did you think people couldn't see the "Edited Today" at the bottom right hand side? I guess when you disprove the facts with an opinion, try to mislead and go in circles.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

. What I did claim is that it would stutter and the experience would be subpar. You can quote me on that one..

Which are your opinions and not the conclusion of the article. Neither Dice nor the author have said the experience will be subpar and suffer much stutter if the person has a recent i5 quad core. The author simply concluded that quad cores will perform worse than 6 cores. That's it. That could simply mean lower framerates.

How about you stop paraphrasing people and actually quote them, the authors actual words..... "Battlefield 1 was one of the first games to really kill the quad-core CPU, 64-player multiplayer Battlefield 1 to be precise. As expected Battlefield V is no easier on quad-cores, we regularly saw my Core i7-8700K test system which features all cores clocked at 5 GHz exceed 70% utilization and at times peak at 8%, so good luck with four threads."

How about you just quote what the author says instead of pretending your own opinions are the author's opinions? The author said BF5 will be hard on quad cores and quads will perform worse than 6 cores. That is all.

Nowhere did the author say i5 quad cores will make Battlefield 5 be subpar, suffer stutter, or be unplayable.

They extrapolated that quad cores will performance worse (eg. by getting lower fps) than the 6 cores. That's it. You're jumping to conclusions that the author never made based on your own assumptions.

Yes, because clearly the author is expressing how easily this game will be playable on a quad core quad thread. It doesn't take a genius to realize that when you remove 33% of your cores and 66.6% of your threads (4c 4t vs 6c 12t) on a game that already consumes 80% of your CPU, you are going to see sacrifices. That's not an opinion, it's basic math.

Nobody doubts quad cores will get lower framerates than 6 cores. The problem here is you've jumped to conclusions by claiming quad cores will be subpar and suffer stuttering.
A quad core getting lower average framerates than a 6 core does not automatically mean the quad core will also have stuttering and a subpar performance. Got it? The author is talking about apples and you suddenly started talking about oranges.

Incorrect, you edited your post after the fact to add that in. What, did you think people couldn't see the "Edited Today" at the bottom right hand side? I guess when you disprove the facts with an opinion, try to mislead and go in circles.

Completely false. Why don't you go look at the timestamps again? I posted it at 3:05 AM and edited it 5 minutes later at 3:10 AM. You quoted my post at 3:26 AM. Do you realize you were quoting my the most recent version of my post 16 minutes AFTER I had already posted it?

Furthermore, In your own post above, you literally quoted my sentence which had the words "quad i5 like those." I did not simply add in those words after the fact if your own post literally quoted those words.

You are the one trying to mislead people. Or maybe you don't understand 3:26 AM comes after 3:10 AM and also don't even bother read your own posts.


Here is a screenshot of your own post where you clearly quoted my sentence as saying "quad i5 like those." Why don't you just admit your mistake instead of making false accusations?

 

[Evernessince]

Which are your opinions and not the conclusion of the article. Neither Dice nor the author have said the experience will be subpar and suffer much stutter if the person has a recent i5 quad core. The author simply concluded that quad cores will perform worse than 6 cores. That's it. That could simply mean lower framerates.



How about you just quote what the author says instead of pretending your own opinions are the author's opinions? The author said BF5 will be hard on quad cores and quads will perform worse than 6 cores. That is all.

Nowhere did the author say i5 quad cores will make Battlefield 5 be subpar, suffer stutter, or be unplayable.

They extrapolated that quad cores will performance worse (eg. by getting lower fps) than the 6 cores. That's it. You're jumping to conclusions that the author never made based on your own assumptions.



Nobody doubts quad cores will get lower framerates than 6 cores. The problem here is you've jumped to conclusions by claiming quad cores will be subpar and suffer stuttering.
A quad core getting lower average framerates than a 6 core does not automatically mean the quad core will also have stuttering and a subpar performance. Got it? The author is talking about apples and you suddenly started talking about oranges.



Completely false. Why don't you go look at the timestamps again? I posted it at 3:05 AM and edited it 5 minutes later at 3:10 AM. You quoted my post at 3:26 AM. Do you realize you were quoting my the most recent version of my post 16 minutes AFTER I had already posted it?

Furthermore, In your own post above, you literally quoted my sentence which had the words "quad i5 like those." I did not simply add in those words after the fact if your own post literally quoted those words.

You are the one trying to mislead people. Or maybe you don't understand 3:26 AM comes after 3:10 AM and also don't even bother read your own posts.


Here is a screenshot of your own post where you clearly quoted my sentence as saying "quad i5 like those." Why don't you just admit your mistake instead of making false accusations?

lol, you do realize that all comments with quotes in them update when the original is edited right? Clearly not. But hey, at least after being proven wrong multiple times maybe you'll learn.

"A quad core getting lower average framerates than a 6 core does not automatically mean the quad core will also have stuttering and a subpar performance."

You pretty much capitulated with your comments here. When a CPU is dropping frames, it stutters. Depending on how many frames, it could be bad stutter or just a little. Either way, A CPU dropping frames is a subpar experience.

"Nowhere did the author say i5 quad cores will make Battlefield 5 be subpar, suffer stutter, or be unplayable."

lol, pulling the old mafia ignore the subtext. Yeah, that gangster totally wasn't threatening your family when he said "it would be a shame if anything happened to your daughter". Lol, yeah. The author really meant that you are going to have an amazing experience when he said "so good luck with four threads". /facepalm

Feigning ignorance? Check. Going in circles? Check.

Got anything else to add to the conversation? Nope? Didin't think so.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

lol, you do realize that all comments with quotes in them update when the original is edited right? Clearly not. But hey, at least after being proven wrong multiple times maybe you'll learn..

That is a completely false. Comments with quotes do not automatically update themselves if the original quoted text is edited. That is a lie and an easily refutable lie too.

Second, you quoted my updated post 16 minutes after I had already edited it. Your accusation that I edited my post after you quoted me if completely false.

You are doubling up on your lies and false accusations with even more lies.

"A quad core getting lower average framerates than a 6 core does not automatically mean the quad core will also have stuttering and a subpar performance."
You pretty much capitulated with your comments here. When a CPU is dropping frames, it stutters. Depending on how many frames, it could be bad stutter or just a little. Either way, A CPU dropping frames is a subpar experience..

No. Reread the post and try again. You seem to not understand that getting different framerates on different systems is not the same as stuttering on the same system. Stuttering involves dropping from higher framerates to lower framerates on the SAME computer.

It's not stuttering if a quad core computer simply just maintains a lower average framerate than a six-core computer.
Computer A getting lower average fps than computer B does not mean computer A is stuttering. It just means computer A has lower average fps.

"Nowhere did the author say i5 quad cores will make Battlefield 5 be subpar, suffer stutter, or be unplayable." lol, pulling the old mafia ignore the subtext. Yeah, that gangster totally wasn't threatening your family when he said "it would be a shame if anything happened to your daughter". Lol, yeah. The author really meant that you are going to have an amazing experience when he said "so good luck with four threads". /facepalm Feigning ignorance? Check. Going in circles? Check. Got anything else to add to the conversation? Nope? Didin't think so.

Again, getting lower "average frame rates" is not the same as and does not automatically equal "stuttering" or having a "subpar" performance. Learn the difference between those terms - they're not the same.

A quad core may get lower average fps than a 6 core, but that doesn't automatically mean the quad will suffer stuttering or result in a subar experience.

You're jumping to conclusions from flimsy evidence to support your own assumptions.

Feigning ignorance? Check. Going in circles? Check. Got anything else to add to the conversation? Nope? Didin't think so.

When you're finished patting yourself on the back, maybe you can stop lying and making false accusations and actually address my comments.

 

[Evernessince]

That is a completely false. Comments with quotes do not automatically update themselves if the original quoted text is edited. That is a lie and an easily refutable lie too.

Second, you quoted my updated post 16 minutes after I had already edited it. Your accusation that I edited my post after you quoted me if completely false.

You are doubling up on your lies and false accusations with even more lies.



No. Reread the post and try again. You seem to not understand that getting different framerates on different systems is not the same as stuttering on the same system. Stuttering involves dropping from higher framerates to lower framerates on the SAME computer.

It's not stuttering if a quad core computer simply just maintains a lower average framerate than a six-core computer.
Computer A getting lower average fps than computer B does not mean computer A is stuttering. It just means computer A has lower average fps.



Again, getting lower "average frame rates" is not the same as and does not automatically equal "stuttering" or having a "subpar" performance. Learn the difference between those terms - they're not the same.

A quad core may get lower average fps than a 6 core, but that doesn't automatically mean the quad will suffer stuttering or result in a subar experience.

You're jumping to conclusions from flimsy evidence to support your own assumptions.



When you're finished patting yourself on the back, maybe you can stop lying and making false accusations and actually address my comments.

We can all see that you edited your post, is says it right on the post. You can kick, scream, and mislead all you want. It doesn't change the facts.

"Stuttering involves dropping from higher framerates to lower framerates on the SAME computer."

Wow, supporting my point again? Who would have thought that's exactly what happens when the game requests more CPU resources then what's available (among other things), which the math I layed out clearly shows is going to happen on a Quad core quad thread. Hey, what do you think happens when a window's background processes requests resources when the CPU is pegged at 100%? The same thing that happened in BF1, stutter.

But yes, let's ignore the math, the article's author, and pages upon pages of reported performance issues on the forums with Quad Core CPUs. I'm sure you'll eventually convince someone of your alternate reality.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

We can all see that you edited your post, is says it right on the post. You can kick, scream, and mislead all you want. It doesn't change the facts.

Again, you purposely attempt to mislead with more lies and false accusations. Let's look at the facts again.

1) I edited my post 16 minutes before you even quoted me in your own post. 3:10 AM is 16 minutes BEFORE your own post at 3:26 AM.

2) Your comment that quoted my post even contained the most recent and latest version of my text. So you were quoting the last version of my post.

You have no excuses for feigning ignorance...which must be why you're making false accusations against me.

And no, quoted text in a 3rd party comment do not automatically update themselves if the original comments are edited by the original poster. And even if it did somehow do that, my edits predates your own comment by 16 minutes so your claim is still nonsense.

Your claim that I magically changed the quoted text in YOUR comment is a complete lie and refuted by obvious facts.
Why don't you drop this line of discussion instead of embarrassing yourself more?

"Stuttering involves dropping from higher framerates to lower framerates on the SAME computer." Wow, supporting my point again? Who would have thought that's exactly what happens when the game requests more CPU resources then what's available (among other things), which the math I layed out clearly shows is going to happen on a Quad core quad thread. Hey, what do you think happens when a window's background processes requests resources when the CPU is pegged at 100%? The same thing that happened in BF1, stutter.

Nice attempt to mislead and change the subject. Let's go back to the point that you were confusing different average framerates on two different systems with "stuttering."

Again, getting less average framerates on a quad core computer compared to a 6 core computer is NOT THE SAME as a computer stuttering. Getting less average fps on one computer compared to another does not automatically mean that computer is stuttering.

Furthermore, you seem to not understand that CPU usage is also directly tied to GPU usage, so high CPU usage does not automatically mean a CPU is insufficent. It just means the GPU is less of a bottleneck compared to most situations. Use a weaker GPU and the CPU usage will lower. The result will be the system will be getting lower average fps, but that does not automatically mean stuttering. Neither average fps nor CPU usage is automatically or directly tied to stuttering.

But yes, let's ignore the math, the article's author, and pages upon pages of reported performance issues on the forums with Quad Core CPUs. I'm sure you'll eventually convince someone of your alternate reality.

Keep telling yourself that if it feels better. You're just pretending your own assumptions are the author's claims, because the author's article never supported any of your claims about "stuttering" or "subpar" performance.

I just hope the posters here don't follow your bad advice and spend money on upgrading when they didn't have to.